Protecting Women’s contraceptive coverage Post-Hobby Lobby.
How can we ensure that Employees and their Families can still get no-copay contraceptive coverage when their Employers declare religious objections to birth control and refuse to cover it? That's the challenge facing the Obama Administration as result of two U.S. Supreme Court decisions over the Summer. This week and last week, I and Women’s Health Members submitted comments on the Administration’s proposed changes to the contraceptive coverage rules in response to the court decisions. I’ll explain our comments and give you a link so you can read them in full.
First, a recap of what the Supreme Court said:
1. In its Hobby Lobby decision, the Court said that Closely-held Corporations that have religious objections to birth control can opt out of providing contraceptive coverage to their Employees. The Court’s Majority suggested these Companies could be given the same accommodation that the Obama Administration had devised for religiously-affiliated non-profit Employers that object to contraception. That accommodation involved the employer filling out a Government-provided Form stating its religious objections and transferring responsibility for providing contraceptive coverage to its Insurance Company or third party Health Plan Administrator (TPA). &
2. Then, a week later in its Wheaton College decision, the Court said that the existing accommodation it had just cited in the Hobby Lobby Decision needed to be changed. The simple act of filling out a form that would transfer responsibility for contraceptive coverage from an Employer to its insurer or TPA might violate some nonprofits’ Religious liberties by inappropriately involving them in facilitating this coverage, the Court said.
To respond to these 2 Decisions, the Obama Administration proposed 2 new regulations spelling out which for-profit Employers can qualify for the contraceptive coverage accommodation and how the accommodation process should be carried out. One key change is if Employers object even to sending the opt out form to their insurers or third-party Administrators, they could instead send a letter to the Department of Health and Human Services notifying HHS that they do not want to provide contraceptive coverage. The letter would provide the name and contact information for the Employer’s Insurance Company or third-party Administrators (TPA). HHS would then be responsible for notifying that insurer or TPA and ensuring that contraceptive coverage is provided for the affected Employees.
I responded to both of those regulations with a loud and clear message: if some Employers can opt out of covering contraception for their Employees, then the Government must have strict rules in place to ensure that Women can still get the contraceptive coverage they need without delay or hassle. I'm concerned that Employees could be left without coverage if the Employer opt-out notification is not swiftly followed by institution of an alternative coverage process and if Employees are not promptly notified about what is happening.
I submitted comments to Administration Officials to tell them what we thought about the proposed rules. Here are my key recommendations:
1. The Group of for-profit Companies eligible for the accommodation must remain small, so as many Women as possible will continue to receive contraceptive coverage without any risk of potential interruptions from the accommodation process;
2. Employers claiming an accommodation must notify all their Employees as soon as possible, so Women and their Families know that their contraceptive coverage will be provided through an alternate process, such as by their insurer or the Health Plan’s third party Administrator;
3. The list of Employers claiming the accommodation must be publicly available, to better ensure that Women will know if their Employer has refused to provide contraceptive coverage and be alerted that an alternative process for providing the coverage should be in effect;
4. There must be a robust government enforcement process that is clear, strictly followed and centralized, so Women working for objecting Employers will know where to go with questions and complaints if they are not receiving the contraceptive coverage to which they are entitled;
5. Women should be able to use the same Insurance Card for their birth control coverage that they use to get their other prescriptions; &
6. There should never be a gap in employees’ abilities to obtain birth control without cost sharing. It is not acceptable for Employees in accommodated plans to pay for contraceptives out of their own pockets at the pharmacy and then wait to get reimbursed from their insurer.
Professor Vasilios Gikas, Academician in Economy & Law.
How can we ensure that Employees and their Families can still get no-copay contraceptive coverage when their Employers declare religious objections to birth control and refuse to cover it? That's the challenge facing the Obama Administration as result of two U.S. Supreme Court decisions over the Summer. This week and last week, I and Women’s Health Members submitted comments on the Administration’s proposed changes to the contraceptive coverage rules in response to the court decisions. I’ll explain our comments and give you a link so you can read them in full.
First, a recap of what the Supreme Court said:
1. In its Hobby Lobby decision, the Court said that Closely-held Corporations that have religious objections to birth control can opt out of providing contraceptive coverage to their Employees. The Court’s Majority suggested these Companies could be given the same accommodation that the Obama Administration had devised for religiously-affiliated non-profit Employers that object to contraception. That accommodation involved the employer filling out a Government-provided Form stating its religious objections and transferring responsibility for providing contraceptive coverage to its Insurance Company or third party Health Plan Administrator (TPA). &
2. Then, a week later in its Wheaton College decision, the Court said that the existing accommodation it had just cited in the Hobby Lobby Decision needed to be changed. The simple act of filling out a form that would transfer responsibility for contraceptive coverage from an Employer to its insurer or TPA might violate some nonprofits’ Religious liberties by inappropriately involving them in facilitating this coverage, the Court said.
To respond to these 2 Decisions, the Obama Administration proposed 2 new regulations spelling out which for-profit Employers can qualify for the contraceptive coverage accommodation and how the accommodation process should be carried out. One key change is if Employers object even to sending the opt out form to their insurers or third-party Administrators, they could instead send a letter to the Department of Health and Human Services notifying HHS that they do not want to provide contraceptive coverage. The letter would provide the name and contact information for the Employer’s Insurance Company or third-party Administrators (TPA). HHS would then be responsible for notifying that insurer or TPA and ensuring that contraceptive coverage is provided for the affected Employees.
I responded to both of those regulations with a loud and clear message: if some Employers can opt out of covering contraception for their Employees, then the Government must have strict rules in place to ensure that Women can still get the contraceptive coverage they need without delay or hassle. I'm concerned that Employees could be left without coverage if the Employer opt-out notification is not swiftly followed by institution of an alternative coverage process and if Employees are not promptly notified about what is happening.
I submitted comments to Administration Officials to tell them what we thought about the proposed rules. Here are my key recommendations:
1. The Group of for-profit Companies eligible for the accommodation must remain small, so as many Women as possible will continue to receive contraceptive coverage without any risk of potential interruptions from the accommodation process;
2. Employers claiming an accommodation must notify all their Employees as soon as possible, so Women and their Families know that their contraceptive coverage will be provided through an alternate process, such as by their insurer or the Health Plan’s third party Administrator;
3. The list of Employers claiming the accommodation must be publicly available, to better ensure that Women will know if their Employer has refused to provide contraceptive coverage and be alerted that an alternative process for providing the coverage should be in effect;
4. There must be a robust government enforcement process that is clear, strictly followed and centralized, so Women working for objecting Employers will know where to go with questions and complaints if they are not receiving the contraceptive coverage to which they are entitled;
5. Women should be able to use the same Insurance Card for their birth control coverage that they use to get their other prescriptions; &
6. There should never be a gap in employees’ abilities to obtain birth control without cost sharing. It is not acceptable for Employees in accommodated plans to pay for contraceptives out of their own pockets at the pharmacy and then wait to get reimbursed from their insurer.
Professor Vasilios Gikas, Academician in Economy & Law.
